What is really the best way to decide who to hire? (cover letters, employee)

[Workaholic?]

Everyone I talk to says the system for hiring the best candidate for a job is broken.

People complain about the employers dependence on resumes which reduce a person to a piece of paper.

They also claim that the interview process is really a waste of time because just because a applicant can put on the charm and answer silly questions well does not mean they will end up being a good employee.

Others complain that employment testing is a waste of time and discriminates against immigrants and minorities.

Still others believe that employers dependence on employment verification and professional references discriminate against shy people and those who happen to work for organizations that are more flexible about giving ex employee references.

Finally, other people complain many employers are too caught up on using education as a vehicle to accept or reject candidates. This discriminates against the poor and minorities.
-------
So, if you were in charge what process would you use to determine who should be hired for a professional job?

[bs13690]

My two cents:

1. Resume
2. Interview and or testing
3. Probationary period
4. Hire

Steps 1 and 2 can definitely be faked but 3 is more difficult. Tough luck if someone has a hard time testing for whatever reason. Depending on the situation/job you could be more or less lenient but I don't see a problem with testing for certain jobs.

[bande1102]

Resume/application + activity-based interview. Have the potential hire attempt to do the job during the interview. Even if they can't do it (because it requires extensive training, etc), their attitude and willingness to learn/deal with stress/relate to others, etc will clearly shine through.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by bs13690

1. Resume
2. Interview and or testing
3. Probationary period
4. Hire

Steps 1 and 2 can definitely be faked but 3 is more difficult.

The solution will be in ways to get to step 3 far sooner than has been.
Some jobs might take a while to flush out actual competence...
this makes employers apprehensive for UI risks. This especially applies to entry level work.

The problem is that given the latitude employers will be tempted to abuse the privelege.

[halfwitwanderer]

I've posted this before and I'll post it again:

In Person: Hiring in a Dysfunctional Job Market - Science Careers - Biotech, Pharmaceutical, Faculty, Postdoc jobs on Science Careers

More or less goes like this:
1. Post up want ad with specific instructions (NO formulaic cover letters + resumes)
2. Invite everyone who followed instructions to an open house (and if possible, see if they can come up with the next step for hiring)
3. Technical skills trial (or give some time for people to learn this skill and see if they excel)
4. Shadowing
5. Hire top performers from step 4.

[andywire]

The system is broken. The whole HR field is a joke from my experience. For my work, I ask a candidate to measure a piece of steel with vernier scale micrometers. That's all I need to see. If they can read the scale, and if they hold the measuring device properly, they got the job. You'd be surprised how hard it is to find someone who can pass that simple test these days.

[Workaholic?]

Some people have suggested that companies just hire a group of people and see how they shake out during the probationary period. Hire 5 or six and let a couple stay. I believe that approach is cruel and will destroy lives and create huge paperwork and unemployment insurance burdens. Also, everyone hired will fight each other to be the one chosen to be kept on and this will cause lots of conflict and general office politics. Finally it will cause companies problem with training and orientation because they will have to train everyone on how to do the job but half of the staff will not survive and their training time is wasted.

I think the current system while flawed is better.

[beachrunner]

Although not totally related, I believe this article has some good points:

Why Companies Can't Find the Employees They Need - WSJ.com

[Hemlock140]

There are companies hiring entry level positions where most anyone can do it that use the odd psychological test questions, but for skilled, experienced jobs, the key is in asking good questions. We can tell if someone really has done the work by their answers to questions that require relating an experience in doing the work. In some cases as work sample project is
also very useful, I have used that in several cases to eliminate those that sound good in the interview but are really not qualified. Whether a person can handle attention to detail, and their job ethic are harder to measure.
That's what the 6 month probationary period is for. Even then some will slip through and wait until the probation is over before slacking, but with proper documentation to build a case, they can still end up being let go.

[Tober138]

Originally Posted by bande1102

Have the potential hire attempt to do the job during the interview.

That may work for a technical job, or something that requires an ability to do a well-defined task (be it measuring a piece of steel or working a deep fryer) where it would be relatively straightforward to observe if a person can do it or not. But in the corporate world, I would be hard pressed to think of many positions for which one could come in and "attempt to do the job" during the interview.

You need the resume so you can at least see if the applicant even has, at least, the basic qualifications for the job. You need the interviews to be able to meet with the candidate in person and to ask questions and get to know them better (and the interview allows the candidate to get to know the company better).